consider this:BolloxReader: If the situation preceded you, then I'd have to suggest a bit more due diligence before moving next time.

Wait, you're suggesting that people should either accept the noise or find somewhere else to live?

I'm suggesting that it depends on the circumstance. If the neighborhood was already that way before someone moved in, then it's that person's fault for not doing due diligence. Neighborhoods full of students and young people are going to be noisy. Anyone who moves in and tries to force them to be quiet is in the wrong. Forcing one's lifestyle and preferrences on others, through laws or regulations, isn't a good response.

If they are the intruders, then they are indeed the ones who farked up and need to move to an area more accepting of their way of life. It is a bit tricky because you can't discriminate in housing based on "they are young" or "they have kids." But I believe that college students are not a protected class, and the landlord should be made aware of how expensive it can be to rent to people whose lifestyle preferences can violate the rights of others to live in peace.

I believe that people should look primarily for compatibility when making housing choices. My wife and I are selling our house of five years because we came to the conclusion that it was too conservative and racist to want to call it home. My wife is very sensitive to noise, so we won't be including any of the neighborhoods I might have considered on my own.

Mangoose:On one hand, that is a blatant violation of the law and the police chief should be let go and then charged. On the other hand, fark teenagers. Those guys suck.

Also, what happened to the ol' "smelled marijuana" tactic? That's all any cop had to say when I was a young whore. Well that or, "when the door opened I witnessed ________ in plain sight", with the ____ being filled in with whatever crime you found on the other side of the door.

MycroftHolmes:I can't answer that, so I will defer to the police chief who made the decision regarding the best use of his men. My point remains, you have created a false dichotomy in your argument. You are saying that if a law is resource intensive to maintain, we should just scrap the law, rather than find another way of maintaining the law. I don't see why it needs to be either or.

You have provided me with your own false dichotomy. I select a third choice - the police chief is full of shiat, a couple of hours for one of your cops is not resource intensive so STFU and enforce the law using the current system which according to his numbers prevents future violations over 95% of the time.

I don't see why the fark we need any change. On the one hand you demand this law is so important it needs change. On the other hand you're telling me it's not worth a couple hours of a cop's time. What the fark dude?

SquiggelyGrounders:Last I checked you are not legaly required to answer the door for anybody. And even if the cops are outside you dont have to talk to them through an open door or otherwise. If they want in its up to them to get a warent

/GED in Law from DeVry

Even after they get a warrant, you don't have to talk to them. Even if they charge you with murdering Presidents Kennedy, Lincoln, Garfield and Harrison, you're under no obligation to talk.

MycroftHolmes:Your original post that I was responding to was basically criticizing the police for implying that civil rights were a waste of time. These comments do not make any sense, as the police are not really any part of your perceived violation of civil rights.

And your assumption that police and city council move in lockstep is an assertion that is not validated in all (or even most) cases.

The cops are city council are completely independent. I get it. Okay then. For the sake of argument we agreed on this already. What next?

MycroftHolmes:You are saying that if a law is resource intensive to maintain, we should just scrap the law, rather than find another way of maintaining the law.

Oh okay, so the cops said it is resource intensive, so the city council has to change the law. These two things work together dependent on each other. Wait, what?

consider this:BolloxReader: I'm suggesting that it depends on the circumstance. If the neighborhood was already that way before someone moved in, then it's that person's fault for not doing due diligence. Neighborhoods full of students and young people are going to be noisy. Anyone who moves in and tries to force them to be quiet is in the wrong. Forcing one's lifestyle and preferrences on others, through laws or regulations, isn't a good response.

Expecting people to follow the law is not "forcing one's lifestyle" on anybody.

I really don't have a dog in this fight, but I get what BolloxReader is saying, the areas in TFA are primarily geared to college housing where students live. When I went to college I specifically moved to an apartment complex as far away from the hub-bub surrounding the University as possible. Because I wanted quite, and I knew I wasn't going to find that near the school. 'Cause I'm a nerd.

DammitIForgotMyLogin:It's not that they're refusing to let officers in, it's that they're refusing to come and answer the door.

Personally, having lived next door to some annoying farktards who loved playing loud music at all hours of the night, i'd support just evicting the douchebags, rather than pansying around with a small fine.

At least someone read the article.

lennavan:In a nice way but yeah. I got pulled over a few years ago, my taillight was out. That was kind of him to let me know. Do you think he cares about my safety? What a kind gentleman. Not sure why he needed to run my license, registration and see my proof of insurance to kindly inform me of my safety risk. In chatting with him he kindly asked me how old my son sitting in the back seat was. What a nice guy, inquiring about my family. We were getting to be friends it seemed. Probably just a coincidence my kid was just barely old enough at the time to sit in the back without a child restraint. He didn't even give me a citation for the taillight. I'm sure that's what he does all day long, helps notify people of the repairs needed to their vehicles.

By the way, I've actually had really farking good experiences with cops and have a wildly favorable view of them. But holy fark are you a tard if you think this is about anything other than generating revenue.

Yeah. Not too long ago I got pulled over because of burned-out brake light. She ran my info of course, told me about the light and asked if I had a spare bulb in the car (no, nor did I have the tool needed to get at them) and she told me to get it fixed soon. No problem.

I'm going to set up a video camera and screen outside my door and outsource speaking to the police to a call center in India. That should keep the police tied up long enough to the party to be over before my fifty cents an hour employee apologizes profusely for the minor inconvenience.

Solution: Pass this law. "Receive" a few noise complaints for randomly selected addresses numbering up to and including the entire State's residences. Send $750 tickets to all selected residences. Afterall, everyone isn't home at least sometimes. They didn't answer the hypothetical door when the hypothetical officer attempted to deliver the hypothetical noise complaint.

Some people take it to court and get the ticket thrown out. Most people realize a lawyer would cost more than $750 and just pay the fine. The rest never respond and collections gets to take their stuff or garnish their wages.

fireclown:Sybarite: I don't see why they have to bother with the provision about whether or not someone answers the door. Why not just set clear noise ordinance guidelines and fines for violating them, then have the cops write a citation and leave in on the front door the same way you would a parking ticket on a car?

Because that wouldn't result in arrests, which look great come budget time. If you get a chance to wander around a college party, you're going to find a bunch of petty nonsense: underage drinking, maybe some marijuana if you're lucky. Suddenly you are no longer essentially a meter maid, you are an ainti crime crusader whose job must be protected.

CSB: I made a policeman get a warrant to search my car once. I just sort of wanted to see what would happen. He radioed in, and the legal aces back at the station got a judge to issue a warrant. A cruiser dropped it off about an hour and a half later, they searched my trunk and found nothing. Looking back, it wasn't a good way to spend an afternoon.

Did that once when I got pulled over speeding. The cop looked really surprised, but he just "ok" and let it go. But still got a ticket.

Well, if the neighbors wanted peace and quiet, they shouldn't have moved in next to a farking frat house. Those guys do have a certain reputation, and it isn't for being studious little nerds. This reminds me of that couple that moved into a house near the airport and then filed a complaint about the noise.

Pumpernickel bread:Well, if the neighbors wanted peace and quiet, they shouldn't have moved in next to a farking frat house. Those guys do have a certain reputation, and it isn't for being studious little nerds. This reminds me of that couple that moved into a house near the airport and then filed a complaint about the noise.

I would totally move next to a frat house.. just for the chance to see some young coed cavorting around.

fireclown:Sybarite: I don't see why they have to bother with the provision about whether or not someone answers the door. Why not just set clear noise ordinance guidelines and fines for violating them, then have the cops write a citation and leave in on the front door the same way you would a parking ticket on a car?

Because that wouldn't result in arrests, which look great come budget time. If you get a chance to wander around a college party, you're going to find a bunch of petty nonsense: underage drinking, maybe some marijuana if you're lucky. Suddenly you are no longer essentially a meter maid, you are an ainti crime crusader whose job must be protected.

CSB: I made a policeman get a warrant to search my car once. I just sort of wanted to see what would happen. He radioed in, and the legal aces back at the station got a judge to issue a warrant. A cruiser dropped it off about an hour and a half later, they searched my trunk and found nothing. Looking back, it wasn't a good way to spend an afternoon.

I actually think that is a CS. Good for you, I seriously wish more people did that and utilized their 5th amendment rights. You don't actually have to tell the customs officer why you were vacationing in that country before they let you back in. If you're a citizen they have to let you in. But as your story suggests, you have to be willing to spend the time and energy because it seems pretty clear they're willing to do it. If more people did it, maybe the cops would stop thinking digging in is worth their time and let you go.

lennavan:MycroftHolmes: Your original post that I was responding to was basically criticizing the police for implying that civil rights were a waste of time. These comments do not make any sense, as the police are not really any part of your perceived violation of civil rights.

And your assumption that police and city council move in lockstep is an assertion that is not validated in all (or even most) cases.

The cops are city council are completely independent. I get it. Okay then. For the sake of argument we agreed on this already. What next?

MycroftHolmes: You are saying that if a law is resource intensive to maintain, we should just scrap the law, rather than find another way of maintaining the law.

Oh okay, so the cops said it is resource intensive, so the city council has to change the law. These two things work together dependent on each other. Wait, what?

I am not certain what point you are trying to make anymore. You're Boobies, which is the one I responded to, basically called out the police for being lazy and violating civil rights

" He's got a good point, civil rights are kinda a waste of time.

I mean, it's worth their time to ticket some underage kids at their residence for drinking alcohol (gasp!111!!) but following the constitution, fark, they're not made of time okay, they have murders and stuff to solve."

The implication in this statement is that the police feel that civil rights are a waste of time. When i point out that the police are not the ones doing anything to threaten civil rights, I get a whole melange of incoherent arguments that amount to1. City government and police are the same (implying that civil and criminal laws are the same which they are not)2. It is really not resource intensive to get a search warrant (not sure how this is relevant)3. If the law is on the books, it should enforced with all available resources, or it should be stricken from the books, there is no middle ground.

Are these really the points you are trying to make, because I am pretty confused. I will restate my original position and you can tell me which point you have an issue with-The questionable law enforcement is not being performed by the police. The police are not taking any actions that compromise civil rights. Municipal code enforcement is a separate entity from the police department.

consider this:BolloxReader: I'm suggesting that it depends on the circumstance. If the neighborhood was already that way before someone moved in, then it's that person's fault for not doing due diligence. Neighborhoods full of students and young people are going to be noisy. Anyone who moves in and tries to force them to be quiet is in the wrong. Forcing one's lifestyle and preferrences on others, through laws or regulations, isn't a good response.

Expecting people to follow the law is not "forcing one's lifestyle" on anybody.

I would suggest that laws are not necessary for anything that does not directly relate to safety. I really have no respect for many laws and ordinances and frequently violate them when they suit me.

Tell me, do you wait for two seconds after fully stoppping at a stop sign before proceding? Do you always know or care whether you are permitted to make a right hand turn on red when visiting other cities? Ever driven above the speed limit? Put your turn signal on while making a lane change or turn?

Those are, in my view, far more important violations than anything noise related (unless you are testing sonic weapons). Noise ordinances are about neighbors not being compatible, that is the long and the short of it. And the police shouldn't be the solution to a cultural problem.

Flakeloaf:robbiex0r: Do you have any idea what happens in a college town when police respond to a "noise complaint"? They breathalyze everyone in that house. Then they ticket the tenants for supplying and other things, often amounting to thousands of dollars per "host". Each underage person in attendance receives a fine no less than $250, and a lot more if it's a second offense. These "noise complaints" can just be cops driving around and hearing the sound of a party.

Sorry, my bad. I'm used to living in a civilized country where police tell the by-law people to handle by-laws, the by-law folks show up to ask everyone to be drunken idiots quietly and the stoners hold their breath until the nice man with the big ticket book is gone.

yea there are tricks, like if you don't go in someone could be hurt/killedor evidence could be destroyed" I heard someone yelling as if they were being injured"done

cops do what the chief tells them to.the chief is told what to do by the city council/ mayor etc.if you don't want a routine call for a complaintkeep it the fark down or invite yer stuffy neighbor so there is no complaint.

seems so simple to avoid trouble

Or they could just tell their whiny neighbor that snitches get stitches.

consider this:BolloxReader: Those are, in my view, far more important violations than anything noise related (unless you are testing sonic weapons). Noise ordinances are about neighbors not being compatible, that is the long and the short of it. And the police shouldn't be the solution to a cultural problem.

So I could move in next to you, blast my stereo 24 hours a day, extra loud while you were trying to sleep, just for the lulz, and you'd just accept it and find somewhere else to live?

I had a neighbor do this, but for an even dumber reason

we were half of a shotgun house. and everyday, we noticed that our neighbor's music was blaring... blaring to the point of shaking the walls and vibrating the floors. so, I'd knock on her door like crazy to get her to turn it down... she'd never respond.

finally, one day I stopped her outside her place, and said, why do you keep your radio so loud all day?

she said, oh, I do that because when I leave for the day, I want people to think that I'm home so they won't rob me.

i told her that the only reason someone would rob her is because now they know she has a good stereo system.

/ everything else she owned has garage sale junk... like literally scrap and junk. was happy to find a new place.// plus, this is new orleans. I'd rather have my house robbed while I am away from it. if they want to rob you, your presence in the house is absolutely immaterial. actually, it might be a bonus, it means they don't have to break in, they just have to knock on the door.

Mangoose:On one hand, that is a blatant violation of the law and the police chief should be let go and then charged. On the other hand, fark teenagers. Those guys suck.

Also, what happened to the ol' "smelled marijuana" tactic? That's all any cop had to say when I was a young whore. Well that or, "when the door opened I witnessed ________ in plain sight", with the ____ being filled in with whatever crime you found on the other side of the door.

That's how my SO got an MIP!

1. cop said he wasn't wearing a seatbelt (puffy coat + studying over a textbook in the passengers seat)2. Cop "smelled pot"3. Found a half bottle of ouzu I bought legally for the 20 yr old SO and I and forgot to grab when he and his friend left.

Of course at every house party my friends and I threw we posted the ACLU fact sheet by the front door.

Best solution around this was what my friends did during a summer block party: locked the doors at 9, drank on the porch, and when the cops came to gice every house on the street tickets they all claimed that they didn't live there but absent friends did and they were waiting on the porch for them. See, officer, house is locked and empty...

consider this:So they plant evidence and make up lies? Oh wait, they find people doing illegal shiat. I have an idea that's just crazy enough to work, how about you don't do illegal shiat, or if you do, don't blast your farking music loud that somebody calls the cops? Impossible, right?

You're saying it's OK for cops to violate the 4th amendment using the pretext of a noise complaint to illegally search houses for any and all other possible violations. (OMG, smoking a little pot in the privacy of their own home, the evil bastards. )

Thankfully that's not how are constitution works. The cops cannot enter at any time. These students know their rights, they've take the correct approach. The 4th amendment is just as potent as the 2nd.

I see this problem as one largely created by bad policing. If the cops didn't use these door-openings as pretexts to illegally search these residences, the students would have had no reason to stop answering their doors. If the police had used respect instead of force, had they generated a tiny bit of trust, the students would answer their doors, they cops wouldn't use it as a pretext, the noise would get turned down, the real problem would be solved.

Cops in college areas often don't do this. They use open doors to invade privacy, so now the municipality is faced with this issue. As I've said above, even if they do pass this inane law, a very easy fix for the students is to build an temporary wooden alcove inside their front doors, allowing them to answer an exterior door while preventing police from abusing their rights.

kvinesknows:RandomRandom: a very easy fix for the students is to build an temporary wooden alcove inside their front doors,

you mean a porch?

It's possible he's re-invented the foyer. I wouldn't expect someone who has the cops called on them for noise violations would know anything about them. The concept probably seems pretty clever to him, I'm sure.

RandomRandom:Dog Welder: Wouldn't they have probable cause to enter the residence if the occupants didn't answer the door?

Forcibly breaking down the door of a residence due to loud music? Really? Not only is that a guaranteed way to generate massive lawsuits against the police and municipality, it's a stunningly massive overreaction. Noise does not equate to a public safety danger.

The proper response would be for the cop to record the noise level from the street, if in violation, write out a civil fine for noise violation and staple it to the front door. Problem solved.

and the defense for this is simple what is the tool called ? How does it work? How did you calibrate it ? What is your training in calibrating this device ? Are you a sound technician ? What is your related training ? oh you know what it is called thats interesting...

I have no problem with this. They are disturbing the peace, people who aren't interested in getting drunk are trying to sleep / study, and they have a reasonable expectation of some privacy / peace. Screaming drunk douchebags riding through college on a D and keeping the good students up all night is not acceptable, and if i was the parent of such a student, i would want something done, as i don't want my money wasted on dickheads who just want to get drunk, fark, and start shiat. Blaring music and heathenistic morans breaking furniture and generally being 'it's all about me " dickheads should pay the price. Just open the damn door, say you're sorry, and turn the music down.

AverageAmericanGuy kvinesknows: RandomRandom: a very easy fix for the students is to build an temporary wooden alcove inside their front doors,you mean a porch?It's possible he's re-invented the foyer. I wouldn't expect someone who has the cops called on them for noise violations would know anything about them. The concept probably seems pretty clever to him, I'msure.

I would argue that building a speciality build foyer that records sound and video for dealing with law enforcement is just as creative as the reenforced door is to the crack dealer.

Law enforcement has a problem with it and they are doing everything they can to not be shaken down by 5.0.

MycroftHolmes:You understand that the police chief is not advocating breaking the constitution, right? He is basically telling the city that he will not waste his men's time trying to get a search warrant for a noise complaint. Which is why the city had to use code enforcement to do an end around on the search warrant. Nowhere in the article did it state or imply that the police were advocating warrantless searches.

Sounds like that's exactly what they're advocating.

Either you let them into your house without a warrant or you get a $1000 fine.

Smart dorm dwellers would get a visit from the RHD and cops in the morning if you didn't answer. Or if the cops were annoyed enough you didn't answer your door, they'd go and shut off power to your room. With fines they levy these days for parties, there's NO incentive at all to be cooperative. These situations usually just result in mailed tickets and notification to the landlord.

I remember the good old days when the cops would come to the front door, teenage drinking all about, and tell you the neighbors are complaining, turn the noise down, then leave. Also, I remember when you got pulled over, open booze containers in the car, and the cops would make you pour your booze out, then tell you to drive straight home.

Tumunga:I remember the good old days when the cops would come to the front door, teenage drinking all about, and tell you the neighbors are complaining, turn the noise down, then leave. Also, I remember when you got pulled over, open booze containers in the car, and the cops would make you pour your booze out, then tell you to drive straight home.

What the fark happened?

/onion on my belt, etc.

War on drugs. They saw the money and applies the mantra to everything else.

dbubb:Everybody wants a puppy until it shiats in the lving room. When you host a college in your town and reap the economic benefits, you're going to have lots of this crap going on.

If you really want to get somewhere, fine the landlords for noise violations. That will clear things up.

there are cities without colleges in them? oh, you said towns.

but, depending on the state, you usually can sue the landlord. you definitely could if your landlord is also their landlord. people just need to start learning their rights. there's a remedy here, without the police. in fact, it is a little stupid, because nuisance stuff like this is not really criminal. there are effective civil remedies.

/ although, sometimes college kids take justice into their own hands... so maybe getting the cops involved is the best way to stay anonymous.

fnordfocus:SirDigbyChickenCaesar: And this is the destruction of the 4th amendment how exactly? Where is the unreasonable search or seizure?

Because it isn't a ticket for a noise violation.

It is a ticket for not letting the Cops in without a warrant. Technically, for not opening the door, but it's the same thing. Once the door is open y'all "knock and talk" and force your way in anyway.

No, it's not. Read the article again. It's a civil ticket for having a "disorderly house". Currently their only remedy is to arrest the people inside that are making the noise, and if they don't answer the door then getting inside requires a search warrant. They want to change it so they can basically just give a (non-criminal) ticket to the landlord/tenants without having to identify who is at the party.

I see a lot of people claiming that cops are "overreaching" when they see people doing something illegal and punish them for it.

Uh, how is that so? Someone really serious about hiding underage drinking or drug use from cops would be better off not being obnoxiously loud enough to keep the neighbors awake. Sure, you have your rights, but your rights end when they tread on my right to go to sleep at night.

If you're dumb enough to mix lawbreaking with an activity that you know attracts cops, then that's your own fault, kids. Learn the lesson and move on.

It's not an "unlawful search" if you're doing it right in front of the cop, and you don't have any right to privacy if you are in the act of violating noise codes that were put in place because your neighbors actually have jobs.

Tumunga:I remember the good old days when the cops would come to the front door, teenage drinking all about, and tell you the neighbors are complaining, turn the noise down, then leave. Also, I remember when you got pulled over, open booze containers in the car, and the cops would make you pour your booze out, then tell you to drive straight home.

What the fark happened?

/onion on my belt, etc.

Civil lawsuit lottomania happened.

Those kids drinking unsupervised at home? Well guess what, if one of those drunk kids does something stupid later that night, gets hurt, or dies from alcohol poisoning - and the parents find out the PD/city knew about the situation and did nothing about it - lotto time! The city will be sued for millions, and the cop will be sued for every penny he has ever earned in his adult life in addition to never working again. It's just not worth the risk of a $20 million dollar lotto payout.

Same with letting a "only slightly tipsy" driver go straight home. Nowadays if that driver hits someone on the way home, the cops life is ruined permanently. And the city will lose it's entire budget for the next 5 years.

RandomRandom:Giltric: Solution.....talk to all local landlords and ask them for a key to the house/apartment and permission to enter their property to answer a complaint.

That's not how US law works.

The resident of a house has 4th amendment rights, not just the landlord. Even if the landlord gives the police a key, they still need a warrant. (And thank god we don't have a 2-class 4th amendment, one for home owners and another for renters. We have enough class division as it is.)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The 4th Amendment, it's your friend.

The 4th is antiquated like the 2nd.I'm sure the founders couldn't see a future world where people play loud annoying dubstep throguh a 1000 watt stereo system keeping everyone around the neigborhood awake.Electricity hadn't been invented yet.....neither was dubstep

Jefferson would have probably been the first to complain.....by putting a .60 caliber ball round through the hipsters forehead.